kanbini_delete_listPermanently deletes a list (column) and every card inside it. Use only when the user explicitly requests deletion; report the affected card count first.
Permanently delete a list (column) and every card in it. Prefer kanbini_archive_list unless the user asks for it to be deleted, and say how many cards go with it before you do. The user can undo it in the app (Ctrl+Z on that board).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses permanence, the cascading deletion of all cards, and the mitigation that the user can undo via Ctrl+Z on that board. It also prescribes a confirmation behavior (count the affected cards) before executing, which is beyond what any structured field conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destruction and cascade, then the alternative, then the undo caveat. No filler, and the most agent-critical facts come first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers consequences, alternatives, and recoverability — everything needed to decide and act safely. It stops short of naming the parameter itself, which is the only remaining gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single `id` parameter, and the description never states that `id` is the list identifier, though this is strongly inferable from the tool name and the "list" phrasing. The behavior that matters most (cascading card deletion tied to this id) is disclosed, which partly compensates for the undocumented parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a list (column)") and immediately clarifies the cascade scope ("and every card in it"). The "(column)" gloss disambiguates board-list terminology, and the destructive framing separates it from kanbini_archive_list and kanbini_update_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly names the preferred alternative ("Prefer kanbini_archive_list unless the user asks for it to be deleted") and gives both the selection condition and the pre-call obligation to say how many cards go with it. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure a destructive sibling tool needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.